Is KISS the king ( including only great famous iconic bands )of filler songs in studio albums?

I was reading the "Opinions about KISS" thread yesterday and something I noticed is that maybe KISS is the king of filler songs.
I revisited the studio albums and came to the conlusion, that for me, KISS is the band with the most filler songs. I love the hits, and some albums more than other, but I don´t see another band with that amount of filler songs. What do you guys think?

 

One man’s filler songs is another man’s deep cuts.

I don’t hear a lot of filler. I don’t like every song, but that doesn’t make it filler.

 

Have you examined every other band’s catalog to reach this conclusion, or do you just not like a lot of KISS music?

 

Yes I did ( only considering great famous iconic bands ) and I like a lot of KISS music as my original post indicated, some albums more than others.

 

Of course they are the kings of filler. And of the nighttime world. We all know that every song on every Kiss album is filler. Let alone the filler that is “better filler” than the “bad filler”. This has all been decided eons ago. At least 100,000 years ago.

 

Lifelong Kiss fan here and I can say that every seventies studio album except the debut and Rock and Roll Over could be reduced to a 5 song EP and that would be fine with me.

 

Yikes this is gonna end up just like the giant argument going on in the “opinions about KISS?” thread

 

Nope, could care less about the “hits” and would be okay with never hearing them ever again but if I had to go through a world without Got to Choose, Goin Blind, Room Service and Tomorrow, I would lose my schnikes.

 

Compared to Mötley Crue or Foo Fighters? Not really.

 

I don´t consider Foo Fighters an iconic band

 

I realize that we could argue about what is meat and what is filler, based on taste, opinions would vary. There would be no real consensus. But, considering the number of songs per album that are 1) hits, 2) regularly appear on KISS compilations, or 3) still get played live in concert, it seems like KISS does not fit that description very well - the kings of filler.

 

From s/t to Dynasty I dont hear an overabundance of "filler". Sure, a lesser song or two here and there but I would not say the albums are padded with crap. But then... I'm a fan. This is music that appeals to me. I think The Beatles have more filler on their albums than KISS. In their prime at least. I wont vouch for any KISS album after Creatures, though.

 

Some of the songs even big fans consider throwaways are songs I love. Like, Dressed to Kill has some tracks I often see get called filler...like Ladies in Waiting, Two Timer..but these are some of my favorites. So yeah, it definitely comes down to individual taste.

Having said that, some of their albums..especially in the '70s (the period I love) were kind of rushed and they sound it. Like the aforementioned Dressed to Kill and also Rock and Roll Over... And maybe in these cases they kind of used what they had..as opposed to waiting until they had the perfect stuff.

Or in Dressed to Kill's case made it up in the studio. But these are among their best albums so who knows.

 

How about The Beach Boys, with the spoken word tracks and instrumentals on the early LPs?

 

Pretty much everything from '83 onwards has a ton of filler (yes, even Lick It Up), but i'd say the initial 6-album run, The Elder, and Creatures are all pretty strong start to finish, and even Unmasked is consistently listenable, albeit a little iffy at times.

All the great Motown acts' albums were laden with filler, although whether those constitute "bands" is up for valid debate.

Kiss just released more albums than almost any hard rock band over their first 20 years...they almost never stopped working, but also had the luxury of multiple individual songwriters, particularly when Ace was in the band, so that allowed them to be more prolific than some contemporaries.

But I'd say Kiss' close brethren Alice Cooper released just as many iffy records with just as much filler after 1976, but for whatever reason doesn't get as much flak for it as Kiss does.

 

Pretty sure every Kiss song ever is filler

 

The Rolling Stones releases after Tattoo You had more filler than hits.

 

True. Kind of hard to continue being relevant or creative/groundbreaking after almost 30 years in the game.

 

I would say Elvis' post army albums were loaded with filler. "Do the Clam" anyone?

 

Kiss: all filler with a little killer. They’re goofy songs for the most part. Gene especially wrote the soundtrack to horny adolescence in the 70’s. I fall off after Dynasty and am not a fan of the ‘80’s lineups or albums. However, still love the band for what they are.

 

I guess this thread will bring the same trolls, but anyhow.
I think it would be silly to suggest that Kiss had more filler than any other major band on two fronts ...
a) Filler is just so totally subjective and not easily definable. One person's trash is another's treasure.
b) Famous "Iconic" bands ... this is another area of contention really. Depends what country you're in, and what region you are from, and so many other variables that would make it impossible to reach a consensus, even if there were no other variables.

 

Certainly the soundtracks, but to suggest all the post army albums are like this, would suggest you just haven't heard a lot of Elvis stuff.
Elvis is Back - straight up killer album
Something For Everyone = great album, but poorly sequenced
Pot Luck - terrible cover, terrible name, excellent album
From Elvis In Memphis - absolute classic album, among the best of all time

So yes for the soundtracks, they are soundtracks, but albums from the sixties, no

 

Yes.
Also: No.

 

Certainly in the '80s, they were. The filler on Animalize, Asylum, Crazy Nights, Hot In The Shade....yikes.

 

You could also say the same thing about every AC/DC album after Back In Black (and a few of the EPs might be 45s).